president's war making power. and that check is there. if congress does not want to wage war against the taliban, against whomever, they can cut off funding. >> thank you. >> i am a student at rutgers university. john mentioned the large majority of americans support giving the president the authority to kill american citizens without charges or trial or to process. my question is, if you were identified as a threat by some nameless official in the administration, where you want to process? >> the issue is not -- [applause] john: i don't think there would name him. they might name me. >> the issue is whether we are in a war situation, whether we are operating under the war powers of the constitution or

whether we are in a law enforcement situation. the to have radically different approaches. we killed tens of thousands of american citizens, maybe hundreds of thousands with no due process in the civil war, and it was the right thing to do. [applause] john: on that note we're out of time. >> you want to discredit a movement, defend the confederacy. go ahead. john: ambassador bolton. no more time left. thank you for joining us and taking these difficult questions. students, thank you for coming here from around the world to learn about liberty. in a few weeks it will do another show with college students, but that's all for this show. this show. captioned by closed captioning services, inc. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. five days and counting until the automatic spending cuts

kick in. from defense to food inspections to travel at airports, what happens when $85 billion in cuts are triggered friday? and what are the chances for a last minute deal? we will ask two senators at the heart of the debate. republican tom coburn and democrat clar mccaskill. will cuts drive some states in recession. we will talk with two leading governors. scott walker of wisconsin and jack markell of delaware. plus, with the president and republicans eye ball to eye ball who will blink first? we will ask our fund panel which side is winning the sequester blame game. and our power player of the week. a brain surgeon touches a political nerve in washington. all right now on "fox news sunday."

>> chris: and hello again from fox news in washington. when all sides agreed to the sequester a year and a half ago is automatic across-the-board spending cuts were supposed so be so painful it would force the president and congress to make a deal. now, with just five days to go there is still no deal. and the deadline is here. joining us today two senate leaders on budget issues. from oklahoma, republican tom coburn. and from missouri, democrat claire mccasskill. about the sequester happen. will the spending cuts kick in on friday? senator coburn? >> they will. it is not $85 billion because it is a pro rata portionle that until the end of the year so it won't be a full 85 billion. >> chris: but it is going to kick in? >> it will kick in. but at a pro rata rate. so you are not going to see

$85 billion all of a shoulden shrink from the federal government. >> chris: we will get to that in a second. senator mccaskill, do you agree it is going to happen? >> unless the republicans are willing to compromise and do a balanced approach i think it will kick in. i'm a little confused about the republican position at this point. it appears that speaker boehner doesn't have any kind of bill that he can even put on the floor of the house that could pass within his caucus and i think there is a little bit of a civil war that has broken out among the republican ranks. >> chris: wait a minute, more, the fact is the house has passed two other measures. they passed something at the house. your is senate hasn't passed anything. >> that is -- they passed it last year, chris. but they have not put anything. there is a new congress now. those bills have no effective

law now. >> chris: but you never passed anything. >> and we will vote on something this week. and it will be a balanced approach. it will do both spending cuts and it will close some loopholes. some really important loopholes that need to be closed just from the sense of fairness in the tax code. >> chris: we will pick up on that in a second. i want to go back to what senator coburn said because the president says all kinds of terrible things are going to happen if these triggers if these sequester cuts kick in. take a look. >> are are republicans in congress willing to let these cuts fall on kid's schools and mental healthcare just to protect tax loopholes for corporate jet owners? >> chris: is the president exaggerating the impact of these cuts? >> absolutely. and you see the typical setup a strawman. look, are the federal government is twice the size it was 11 years ago.

we are spending almost $4,000 per person per year coming out of the federal government. $12,000. the average family is on the hook for unfunded liabilities in excess of three quarters of a million dollars per family. and what this -- what sequestration is, it as terrible way to cut spending, i don't disagree with that. but to not cut 2.5% out of the total budget over a year when it is twice the size it was ten years ago, fiv give me a break. we see all of these claims about what a tragedy it is going be. the great example is if the secretary of transportation can assure us that all of the planes going to be safe then the department of homeland security can assure us that we can get through the airports on time. they have flexible in terms of discretion. there is easy ways to cut the money that the american people will never feel. what you hear is an outrage

because nobody wants to cut spending except and it will be some what painful. but not cutting spending is going to be disasterrous for our country. >> chris: let me pick up. you just heard republicans say the problem is the president isn't searous about cutting spending, senator mccaskill. let's watch. >> house republicans already pass today bills to replace the president's sequester. so the question is why won't he work with us? and the answer quite simply is because he wants higher taxes. >> chris: now, i know you talk about a balanced approach but clearly the republicans aren't going to agree to that. not saying who is right or who is wrong. but senator mccaskill, republicans are talking about passing something that week that would give agencies, give departments more flexibility to set priorities so that the cuts could be made according to what makes sense and doesn't make sense instead of across the

board. you supported the idea but the white house opposes transfer authority. what sense does that make? >> here is really what is going on. you have as usual in washington a large thing going on about who can get blamed. no question the cuts will be painful and they are thoughtless. i know tom coburn and i agree on that. we need to do more spending cutting. we have to cut more spending. we agree on that. why is it that we can't come to the table and agree what cuts need to happen? that is what we should be doing. we shouldn't be passing the blame to the executive branch or saying this is obama's sequester. the republicans supported this. i supported it. we need to come together and make the right cuts and frankly ash carter at the department of defense said even if we did some kind of flexibility move at the 11th hour it is too little too late in terms of what they have in motion at the department of defense. we need to come together --

>> chris: but you senator mccaskill -- >> i want to sum jump it. i cannot support this. >> chris: let me ask senator mccaskill this question. you are not going to get an agreement on the cuts in the next five days. the see he questions terrorist attack is going to go through. why not give agency heads more flexibility to decide i'm going to cut more of this and less of that? >> i think right now the way this is set up, there are going to be cuts a lot of places and there will be some flexibility. i think we are going to look at a number of things this week. but it doesn't take away the real need we have and i know tom coburn agrees with me on this. we have a much bigger problem down the line in terms of reducing our debt than just what we face this week. so why not the take the offer, the very specific offer the president has on the table that does cut some entitlements. that does do more in terms of looking at long-term debt. and let's get a big deal. let's fund the government. let's quit careening from

crisis to crisis that, frankly, hurts confidence of investors across this country and hurts our economy. >> chris: senator coburn? >> i think, first of all, the crisis is made up. it has been created. i didn't support the sequester because that is a stupid way to cut spending. and i didn't support increasing the debt limit because there is no such thing as a debt limit in this country because we always raise it. the fact is we have tons, hundreds of billions of dollars of fat and waste and excess in the federal government and we ought to be about cutting some of it out. you are seeing a political game go. there is no reason that we don't go on and cut spending even across the sequestration. some of it is not smart but it is the only way washington republicans and democrats are ever going to get out of both parties some spending cuts. and the reason there is no agreement is because there is no lead are areship from the

president on actually recognizing what the probl. and the problem is an excessive bloated big federal government that is highly inefficient and highly ineffect. >> chris: senator mccaskill isn't there a danger here for democrats. not a cliff, not like the debt ceiling where we immediately go into default. it is only going to be about $44 billion of cuts in the rest of this fick year and they will happen rather slowly. isn't there a danger for republicans people won't feel the pain and they will say you know what, we can shrink the size of government? >> i think that there is several dangers that are looming. the biggest danger is that we have a dysfunctional congress that can't compromise. i'm proud to be part of the moderate middle. i'm happy to work with tom coburn and we have worked on ways to make our government more responsible to taxpayers. that is really at the heart of this, chris. you have some loopholes.

right now a guy making $3 million at one end of the hall managing a hedge fund pays 20% and the guy at the other end of the hall making 3 million managing an insurance company pays north of 35%. that's dumb. we need to come together in the moderate middle and have a balanced approach that fixes loopholes and gains some revenue but continue to focus atgeting at the waste that tom cow burn and i agree about. >> chris: running out of time. i want to talk about a couple of ore issue. the nomination of chuck hagel to be defense secretary comes up this week. senator mccaskill, you voted for hagel in committee. i want to play one of a number of rocky moments he had during h his hearing. >> i support the president's strong position on co containm. i have just been handed a note that i misspoke and said i supported the president's position on containment. if i said that, i meant to say

that i obviously his position on containment we don't have a position on containment. >> just to make sure your correction is clear, we do have a position on containment which is that we do not favor containment. >> chris: senator mccaskill, during that hearing senator hagel also said that iran has a "elected legitimate government." just on the question of competentence, just on the question of knowledge do you really have no second thoughts about chuck hagel as is secretary of defense? >> the president was just reelected by the american people and he has selected a man who is very qualified to be secretary of defense. his resume, his time as an enlisted soldier, fighting in a war with great bravery and decoration, to running the uso to serving on a a variety of different important bodies that deal with national defense policy. the president wants him in the room as he is making important decisions.

he has -- there is no question about his integrity or his character. i think the president deserves to have the cabinet he wants as long as the person is qualified and there is no question of how strong his character and integrity are. i think it is unfortunate some of the things that -- did he have the best day that day? of course, not. it wasn't a great performance in front of the committee. having said that, he is qualified. he is -- i think it is despicable the way his character has been impugned by some people through innuendo. >> chris: i'm not disputing heir character i'm disputing his confidence or questioning his competence. i know what the administration policy is on prevention and you know it. he didn't. >> i think misspoke the way he said it and, you know, was that -- should he be disqualified after a lifetime of service and a resume that clearly supports this position

should he be disqualified because he wasn't as articulate in the the committee as he should have been? i don't think he should be and i think it is time for us to come together and unite behind him so he can do the best job possible keeping our country safe. >> chris: senator coburn, two quick questions. you are one of 15 republican senators who sent a letter to the president this week asking him to pull the nomination. we senator shelby and mccain saying they are no longer going to block his nomination. do you agree that hagel will be confirmed this week? >> he might be but the danger for the country and the lack of leadership by the president is recognizing that he doesn't have the confidence of the vast majority of the senate which weakens him in that position. i like chuck hagel as an individual. but the fact is it is in modern times we haven't had one defense secretary that had more than three votes against him and you will have 40 votes against him or 35 votes and that send is a signal to allies

as well as our foes that he does not have broad support in the u.s. congress which limits his ability to carry out his job. >> chris: a bya by partisan grp of senators is close to a deal about a ridge tray. question, you are a member of this group. how close are you to a deal and what is the problem with keeping records? >> i don't think we are that close to a deal and there absolutely will hot be record keeping on legitimate law abiding gun owners in this country and it if they want to eliminate the benefits of actually trying to prevent the sales to people mentally ill and to criminals all they have to do is create a record keeping. and that will kill the bill. eliminate the record keeping and give people the right and the responsibility to do the right thing and that is check

on the list to make sure you are not selling a gun to somebody who is in one of those categories. >> chris: senators, thank you both so much. thanks for joining us today. and we will be counting down to the friday deadline for those big spending cuts. thank you both. >> chris: up next, two governors tell us what impact the sequester will have in their states.

>> chris: with washington headed for the sequester the nation's governors are in town and warning the federal spending cuts may drive their states back in recession. here to talk about it republican governor scott walker of wisconsin and

democratic governor jack markell head of the national governor you's association. welcome. >> good to be with you. >> chris: start with the and what it will mean toacsequr states. cost wisconsin $1.8 billion and 36,000 jobs and big cuts for health service and special education funding. do you support congressional republicans willingness to let the cuts kick in if the alternative is to raise taxes the obama idea? >> all of us as governors have a concern about what the impact is going on the respective states in terms of the potential of the cuts if they do nothing but in terms also of what the alternatives might be. we had the first wave of impacts of tax increases from the last budget deal and we are seeing the impact. a typical family making $50,000

is paying a thousand dollars more a year in terms of tabs. that is money out of the economy as well. if we are not careful a tax increase on one end could be a problem and severe cuts could be a problem. one of the biggest problems in this city too many times they kick the can it doesn't matter which party down the block if you will and don't really solve the problem. our hope is between now and march 1 they will find a way to provide better alternatives to the cuts and the sequester. >> you wouldn't is support the tax hikes and spending cuts. >> when the president proposed a sequester he said the cuts are so bad that the congress and administration will come back and provide a better alternative of cuts and not new tabs. they already had the tax increases. that came at the last year when we temporarily avoided the fiscal cliff. the challenge how to is to find better long-term ways to solve the fiscal problems facing this country right here in washington. >> chris: you you have a smaller impact of the sequester

if delaware. how concerned are you about it? >> we are concerned particularly the effect on the economy. a lot of us feel like we are starting to get out of it and things are getting better and unfortunately the sequester could put us right back where we were. we spend so much time as governors trying to put people back to work. one of the most frustrating conversations any governor can have is with an employer who says i have vacancies but i can't find people with the right skills. one of the effects with the sequester could be to hit workforce development training funds. one of the things we to do is figure out a way to put people back to work as opposed to seeing cuts like this. >> chris: are you literally saying the sequester could push your state and other states back in recession? >> i think the congressional budget office estimates could be 750,000 fewer jobs. people talk what is the effect on states on the sequester. the impact is what is the

impact on the people that we seven. states are only a vehicle for service. whether the fact that things like head start, special ed, substance abuse training. low income energy assistance or workforce development funds. that hits us and our budget. the real impact could be on the economy and jobs. >> chris: switching subjects. vice president biden, of course, lives in the state of delaware and recently had advice for his wife jill about how to defend herself. let's take a look. >> i told my wife we live in an area that is wooded and some what secluded. i said jill if there is ever a problem walk out on the balcony here and walk out and put that double barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. >> chris: you have a smile on your face. what do you think of that? >> i think the point that he was making is people are entitled to have weapons use them for self-defense and he is obviously right about that. >> chris: in fact, though, wouldn't what he just suggested

be illegal? you know, it went on the blogs that in delaware you have to have a fear of your life before you can use deadly force jay think what he is really saying is that if she felt like she was in danger are she has a weapon and she can use it. >> chris: in fact, it would be illegal? >> maybe he doesn't live in the city of wilmington. he does live in a fairly secluded area. so i was not the least bit troubled by his comments. >> chris: okay. a very politic answer. since he is the most famous constituent of your state. governor walker, let's turn to a specific issue with you. the last time we talked you were battling and beating the public workers' unions on collective bargaining rights. the issue still being appealed in the cores what has the effect of your reforms been both on the budget and for the state and for localities and for the unions? >> well, it has been positive for the taxpayers. the taxpayers won not only in our recall election but every

time we have been upheld in the courts in both the state courts and federal courts. the real impact we just announced last wednesday in the state budget. went two years ago from a budget deficit to nearly a half a billion dollars surplus. we increased funding based on performance for schools and invested in things like workforce development. >> chris: did that specifically come from the fact that the workers unions couldn't collectively bargain? >> we knew we had to tackle the biggest part of our budget. in washington show are not tackling entitlements. the biggest driver in our government was aid to local governments. the only way to reduce that without crippling local services is empowering much as i had been a local official for 8 years was empowering local governments to be able to make changes not just in terms of presentation and healthcare contributions. stopping overtime abuse and work rule changes and schedule things that make things more

financially available for the schools and local governments. we did that and in turn we were able to balance our budget and our economy got better. >> chris: turn to another subject. one of the big jobs that all of the governors face over the next year is beginning to implement obama care which kicks in officially the following year, the beginning of 2014. governor markell you agreed to the expansion of medicaid in your state and you will work with the feds in setting up the health exchange in the state. kind of a partnership between delaware and the federal government. with all of the spending problems here in washington, are you worried that maybe not the first year report second year but at some point you will end up footing the bill for obama care? >> first of all, i think they made it very clear that they deald to stick with the teal that was offered to the states. we made that decision for reasons of math. we get to cover additional people. people who other who not have had coverage and ended up in the most expensive place of all which is the emergency room. the federal government will

pick up the cost for three years and 90% thereafter. in addition, a a higher reimbursement for people we are serving. for delaware taxpayers that made sense. the exciting move about healthcare is not what is happening in washington, it is what is happening in states around the country. some of the incredible innovations move away from the fee for service model. great work being done in oregon, arkansas and many other states. number of states including delaware just last week received innovation grants from the department of health and human services to focus on exactly that. >> chris: i want to stay with obama care, though, if you will. governor walker you made a different decision. you have refused the expanded medicaid even though the feds were talking about picking up all of the costs as governor markel left field mentions for the first three years and 90% thereafter. you said we are not going to run the health exchange. we will let washington do it. how come? >> governor markell talked about this o not only between democrats and republicans but

types members of their own party. in our case it was a better deal to not take the funds. we reduced the number of underinsured. reduced the number of people on med day kade. put 87,000 people in the marketplace and replaced them with 82,000 people who g in poverty today but weren't eligible under a cap in the past from my predecessor. >> chris: getting a little in the weeds. you pointed out the fact there has been difference win the parties as you well know. 7 republican governors agreed to the expansion of medicare to 133% of the poverty. they are up on the screen including well known conservatives like rick scott of florida this week. john kasich of ohio and they say they are cog it because of if you will free money. the fact that they said our taxpayers are having to pay into the is system so they ought to get the benefits of it and if the government the is willing to pay 00% of the cost we would be crazy not to accept

it and critics say that your decision is, one, going to cost your state millions of dollars and two, going to mean a lot of people in wisconsin are uninsured. >> every state is different. that is why i won't criticize them republicans or democrats. every state is different. in our state we reduced the number of uninsured and number of people on medicaid and saved money. >> chris: is part of it you are afraid that the federal government won't live up to this? >> no doubt about it. just the for my costs to continue medicaid in the state of wisconsin without any expansion, $644 million more in this budget. 39% of that is because the federal government under the affordable care act and other provisions is pulling back from the previous commitments. that is without the expansion. if congress can't fulfill the commitments they made i'm concerned about where the theyl be in the future. that is unique to wisconsin. >> chris: well, it isn't. >> every state is a little bit

different. >> chris: why is he that he doesn't trust, washington, and you do? >> the bigger story and the one that i think a lot of people miss is the fact that no matter what happened with respect to the affordable care act what this country has to do is move away from what has become a sick care system where people get paid based on how many procedures they do to a healthcare system where people get paid based on quality. we have the opportunity to improve quality and reduce costs simultaneously. the affordable care act provides the foundation. >> chris: that is what obama care was supposed to do but didn't to that. >> you are looking at a point in time. first of all, healthcare rates have not increased at the same rate they had before. if you are looking at some of the innovations around the country we heard in the governor's only meeting from some of the governors who are already seeing significant improvement in the reduction of costs. >> chris: we to leave it there. governor walker and governor markell thank you both for coming in. please come back. up next, playing politics with the sequester.

we ask the panel how bad will the spending cuts really be? and who is pin the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on all purchases, plus a 50% annual bonus. and everyone but her likes 50% more cash, but i have an idea. do you want a princess dress? yes. cupcakes? yes. do you want an etch-a-sketch? yes! do you want 50% more cash? no. you got talent. [ male announcer ] the capital one cash rewards card gives you 1% cash back on every purchase plus a 50% annual bonus on the cash you earn. it's the card for people who like more cash. what's in your wallet? i usually say that.

>> you want to see a bunch of first responders lose their job is and teachers laid off. >> air traffic controllers and air force security. it will be hardship on a whole lot of people. >> a new add on the conservative group cross roads mocking the president's doom and gloom warnings about the sequester. time for our sunday group. bill kristol of the weekly standard. mara liasson from national public radio. republican strategist nick ayers and evan bayh. let me ask this as a group question do you all think the sequester will happen and the $85 billion in spending cuts will kick in on friday? >> yes. >> yes. >> i guess i hate to acknowledge. >> right here. >> it going to happen.

>> i hate to akron none the inevitable of something so stupid but nevertheless it is going to happen. >> chris: one of the reasons it seems to be that it will happen is because both sides see some political advantage. the democrats think that when the cuts start to become painful voters will blame republicans. republicans think hey, my voters in my home district back home voted for me to come and cut spending. question, are they both right? >> i guess we will see how the politics plays out. letting people are letting this go ahead with massive cuts to the military. when you exempt soldiers and marines and other troops salaries you are talking about 15 to 17% cut. we are fighting a war. that is a word that never gets mentioned when we debate the sequester. we do have challenges abroad and the idea that serious elected members of congress and the president of united states don't put first things first and say we have got to fix this. we can no the have the military to the degree that clare

mccass kill never endorsed this level of cuts in the mill tare right-hand' shes it is wrong. republicans have the majority the in the house. god knows they don't think these levels of cuts in the military are responsible. why aren't they doing anything about it? >> the obvious answer is, first of all, you could try to make a deal. that is not going to happen. the idea of flexibility of transfer authority saying to the various agencies you don't have to cut an equal amount from each budget bucket. some things are more important and cut less there and some less important and cut more there. >> they might be faced with that in a continuing resolution with flexibility. a lot republicans saying instead of shutting down the government at the end of march continue the sequester level of funding to accommodate democrats in the senate with giving flexibility so it is up to them to divide up the pain and that might happen. the president faced with a

decision does he want to veto that or accept it. right now the white house wants to see if their theory is correct that the cuts will be so painful it will force republicans to go to the negotiating table. we don't know if that is going to happen. if might not. >> i want to pick up with you. in a sense, aren't both sides taking a chance here if the white house is right and it is painful and kids get thrown out of head start and it quarterbacks intolerable to go through airports are voters going to blame republicans and say, once again, they are protecting the wealthy at the expense of the middle class? conversely if the republicans are right and 2 isn't that painful might voters say we can shrink the government and it doesn't kill things? >> i don't live in d.c. and surprised when i come back here that only in this town could a 3% spending cut, 85 billion touchdown year. rich lowery. >> national review. >> right said it is going to be more closer to $45 billion. only could a 3% cut sound that bad if wag, washington.

the president woodward's column was a game changer this week. the president now owns sequestration. it is fact. republicans should withstand the heat in the coming days and coming weeks and then after it happens need to get out of this town and go on offense and explain that they had two options. accept more tax increases which is bad are for the country and they are not going to do that or allowed spending cuts. they weren't done the way they proposed them but it was abouter than raising tax increases. let me make the point with all of the governors here in town today the republicans have a great case to make that look at how republican governors in states have handled this. dealt with issues far bigger than 3% to budget. guys like chris christie who closed a 33% budget gap. scott walk who closed a $3 billion budget deficit by reneglect hating important contracts in the birth place of afscme and closed massive budget deficits.

i think republicans are in a good position to stand the heat in the coming days but don't stay here to fight the battle. they have to get out of washington, d.c. >> chris: one of the reason that nick ayers is so interested in the government he used to be running the republican governor's campaigns and got them elected. he also referred to the bob woodward article. a piece in today's washington post he wrote the week on the budget battles in 2011 and says not only was it the white house that came up with the idea of the sequester but they also is accepted the idea that the sequester would be all spending cuts not tax increases. let's put up with woodward writes today. so when the president asks that a sub is student for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue he is is moving the goal post that was not the deal he made. senator bayh, your reaction? >> he may be, chris. as you know in washington some agreements are written in blood

and others in vanishing ink. this is one of the latter. there was an intervening election and the president won and his popularity is very high right now. it is not unexpected that he would revisit the agreement and ask for are something more to his like. i think the way this all plays out depends on how the cuts affect americans' daily lives. right now the republicans are focusing on polls that show that in theory people like spending cuts but different polls show when you talk about specifics not nearly so popular. my guess is that the president wins the short-term because he is popular. the republican brand is still damaged. he has the bully pull pit. does he get drug into the morass. people say we expect you to fix these things. we all know congress is dysfunctional. does he eventually get tarred with this whole thing. we won't know that for awhile. >> chris: a top white house official was so sensitive about the woodward column he called

me last night and said it is a complete revisionist history. we accepted all cuts to the sequestration as a way to get the trigger and nobody expected it to happen. if f. we wanted all spending cuts we could have made that deal with the house republicans back in august of 2011 and there wouldn't have been sequestration. >> the white house proposed it originally. they are being misleading when they denied that. on the other hand the majority coated for it. now, it is happening. just pathetic this is a a political debate -- i hate to sound like some -- we are how maniment months away from the next election? september of the election year you understand you will not get a compromise for the national interest. really in february right after a national election you can't rise above this? the president of the united states does stupid campaign events with people with emergency responders behind him as props. the republicans in the house sit around saying let it go in

we are tough guys we will stand up. what about the military? let them go to the bases in their home states and say explain they are cutting back on training and not sending a sendary craft carrier to the. >> we can't govern so we will have an automatic pilot. the timing is probably off. you need long-term entitlement reform but the political process is just broken. >> chris: which may be one of the reasons you are no longer in the senate because you came to that conclusion. >> i got back on my ms, chris. >> chris: already. than happy note we will take a break here. when weigh come back, will chuck hagel and john brennan be confirmed or will republicans find some new ways to block them.

for the sake of national security we urge the senate to confirm senator hagel. we urge the senate to confirm john brennan and to get them to work because the needs them to at work. >> gretchen: the white house press secretary jay carney urging the senate to vote to confirm chuck hagel and john brennan. we are back now with the panel. as we mentioned earlier 15 senarote to the president this week urging him to pull the hagel nomination. senator lindsey graham who is against the nomination demanded more information about various speeches and various comments that chuck hagel made. bill, any way that they can block the hagel nomination or is he going to be confirmed this week? >> they could block it and i think it will be a close vote for are cloture on tuesday morning. senator hagel has and archive. some of the speech there's is

contention about what he has actually said. they have the legitimate issue for the republican senators to say secretary of defense is kind of an important job and we look at these peaches he has given. having said -- these speeches he has given. party loyalty sometimes trumps everything else in washington. >> chris: mara, as i was talking about with senator coburn you have mccain who voted to block. he says he is not going to vote this week to block. richard shelby voted to block and is not going to do that. this would seem just mathematic since the cloture was defeated bay single vote with those two switches hagel gets through. >> i think hagel gets through. hard to see the math how the republicans can block him and the question is how damaged has he been by the whole process. i think he was damaged more by his own performance than by the votes against him and he will

have to make up for that. but as he said he doesn't make policy and it is all coming from the white house anyway. i think it is just all around an in auspicious beginning for a new secretary. >> you live outside the beltway. is any of this about hagel's comments and benghazi and the e-mails, is any of that penetrating in the real world? >> i think it is. i think the hearings were so bad that this cut through out of the town and into where average folks are asking questions. it is an impossibility for the white house to say with a straight face this is a the best choice at a critical time for chuck hagel to run the defense department. it an impossibility. is it the president's preroguetive? absolutely. i think he bell confirmed. this is like andy griffith actually turning mayberry over to barney. i don't want to be rude but haley barbour made a comment this week that i think is right

and he said what is sad is in the second term obama's cabinet is starting to look more like a staff and people who will do what he tells them to do. it is really the president making him isself defense secretary at a time when we need a serious person over there like a bob gates or leon panetta. >> chris: senator bayh, i want to pick up on what tom he coburn said. assume haig ale gets in. does it weaken h his credibility and clout on capitol hill and his ability to deal with all of the competing power structures inside the pentagon? >> the first impression was not positive as a result of the hearings, chris, no doubt about that. it is very imperative for the new defense secretary. chuck will be confirmed in his first public outing or two to project the sense of command, thoroughly briefed, in charge of the facts to dispel the original impression created. after that the challenge to

assemble around himself a strong management team because that is a big management responsibility in the pentagon. they will be going through changes and fiscal challenges even without the sequester. the proof if the the pudding will be in the eating. how does he perform as secretary of defense. can he comes out with a better impression, not such a big teal and he can put this behind him. >> chris: one of the ways the white house is trying to clear the path for two nominees, hagel at defense and brennan at cia is they have kind of grudgingly dragged out have agreed to release some of the e-mails that chart outraged the talking points were developed after the benghazi terror attack from the time of the attack until susan rice went on the five sunday shows five days later and said that it was all a spontaneous demonstration in reaction to the antiislamic video. what do you expect the senators to find? >> i don't know but i would like to see them. they are not classified

e-mails. e-mails that the pr performance after the attack and i don't see why they shouldn't be made pub live and let us judge whether mr. (nan wa brennan wa. >> chris: do you think -- the fact this they are release them would seem to indicate -- >> they are only giving to the senate intelligence committee. >> chris: that is giving it to everybody in a sense. i would think that there are no smoking guns there or they wouldn't release them? i mean i would think -- >> i think better of the obama administration than that, chris. maybe you are not aware. >> chris: says we got to take al-qaeda out. >> maybe you are not aware it is the most the transparent administration in history, chris. they want to tell us. the truth is they think how could you focus on benghazi all

these months. the more we learn the suspicions turn out to be, correct. the president took a hike in terms of serious guidance. this were failures before hand. benghazi turns out to have been as much of a scandal as some of us suspected all along. >> chris: mara? >> i think the who us is confident there is nothing in there that will blow up in their face. both of these guys are going to be confirmed and brennan i think never faced any serious opposition. >> chris: senator bayh, meanwhile the u.s. and our allies with 11 down with iran to discuss once again, the nuclear program for the first time i was astonished to see this is since last june and all of this comes at a time when iran is tripling its is centrifuge capacity to enrich uranium even faster. what do you think of the chances for any progress there? >> i would be skeptical about the chances for progress.

the important thing to remember is the iranians respect strength. we got to keep the sinces on and let them know that we will not tolerate them becoming a nuke weapons power. that is the stance. >> chris: but if they are tripping the centrifuge capacity the sanctions we put in don't seem to have george w. bush. >> they are imposing economic harm on the country. the supreme leader is contemptuous of the west and things that their pass detroit endure hardship is greater than hours and if he can wait this out he will get what he want which is a nuclear capability. we need to say we will make this as hard on you as we possibly can and if push comes to shove we will do something about this and he has to believe it. >> chris: i remember netanyahu with the cartoon bomb at the u.n. and drawing the redline. we are getting to the red line probably by summer, aren't we. in. >> i wish evan bayh were defense secretary and not chuck

hagel. >> there go my chances. >> they were very high anyway. are i like to endorse you to make sure you you can continue to be a valued panelist here on "fox news sunday." >> chris: your thought? >> i think israel faces a difficult decision and said repeatedly they cannot tolerate a nuclear weapon. i think they may have to act. >> chris: thank you panel. see you next week. check out panel plus where the group picks right up with the discussion on our website fox news sunday .com and we will post the video before noon eastern time. follow us on twitter @ fox news sunday. up next, our power player of the week.

>> chris: he is a world-renowned brain surgeon but he also has become a political lightning

rod. it seems a good time to revisit our power player. week. >> i think that it's the most appropriate venue to deal with what is ripping our nation apart and the fact we are moving away from our values and principles. >> chris: david carr son is talking about the speech. his remarks at the national prayer breakfast two weeks ago. he diagnosed what is wrong with country, such as political correctness. >> we have reached a point where people are afraid to talk about what they want to say because somebody might be offended. >> and the benefits of flat tax. >> well this some people say it's not fair it doesn't hurt the guy that made ten billion dollars. where does it say you have to hurt the guy. >> chris: why is that relevant at a prayer breakfast? >> because at a prayer breakfast we are talking about sins.

i think it's a perfect opportunity to talk about what is truly fair what is politically fair. >> chris: the response has been electric. two and a half million people have viewed the speech online. a wall street editorial proclaimed ben carson for president. >> this is time of thing the republican party should have been saying for the last four years. >> chris: but liberals were upset. >> it's a people to commune for god of their choice and he turns into a political session. >> human potential is something that we don't talk about a lot. >> chris: we first sat down with him a year as at john hopkin's center in baltimore. he is legendary to take on the hopeless cases. >> it becomes the clear the only shot this person has if you do something. >> chris: he knows all about human potential because he has lived it.